Washington, D.C. — Over 150,000 Americans have opposed a proposed rulemaking by the Trump administration to eliminate major habitat protections for endangered species in the U.S. after it was unveiled in April — and as the period for public input concludes today.The proposed rule would rescind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) definitions of what counts as illegal “harm” to threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). “Harm” is currently defined to include significant habitat modification that kills or injures species by removing necessities such as food and shelter.

The current definition of “harm” is an important tool for habitat conservation that has been in place for over 40 years and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995. It has been integral to the ESA’s role in saving more than 99% of species under its protection including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, gray wolf, and many other iconic American wildlife.

Even with the incredible success of the ESA, over 90% of listed species remain threatened by human-caused habitat destruction. If anything, the case for habitat protection under the ESA has grown even stronger over the years, with mountains of scientific evidence linking habitat and species’ survival.

The ESA was passed by Congress in 1973 with virtually unanimous bipartisan support. The lawmakers behind the ESA knew that scientists — not politicians — should decide whether vulnerable animal and plant species should be protected. In their spirit, three U.S. senators have officially demanded that the Trump administration explain how it came to its determination to eliminate habitat protections for U.S. wildlife and to answer whether industry influence was involved. Additionally, a group of the nation’s leading scientists and experts on wildlife sent a letter to the Trump administration urging it to abandon the proposed rule, which the scientists state “lacks any scientific basis and misinterprets the Endangered Species Act.” And 25 legal scholars expressed “vehement opposition” to the proposed rule in a letter to the administration.

The outpouring of public opposition to the proposed rule change is no surprise. Over 80% of Americans support the ESA. Most Americans know how important conserving habitats, lands, and waters are to our everyday lives and that protecting them should be a national priority. The stakes aren’t limited to wildlife — when ecosystems degrade, people suffer from threats to clean water, food security, and public health.

In response to the tens of thousands of Americans who are calling on the Trump administration to abandon its effort to eliminate habitat protections for vulnerable wildlife, 131 environmental and animal welfare groups from across the country issued the following statements:

“Tens of thousands of Americans have rejected the Trump administration’s callous effort to steal habitat away from our endangered species,” said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles. “Trump’s proposed rule recklessly ignores common sense and common science. We’ll do all that we can to ensure vulnerable wildlife continue to have a livable habitat and a chance at survival.”

“Wildlife cannot survive without habitat — that’s not opinion, that’s biology,” said Josh Osher, public policy director for Western Watersheds Project. “This proposed rule is an industry-crafted blueprint for extinction, designed to let corporations destroy the very ground endangered species stand on, while pretending no harm is being done.”

“Loving wildlife is baked into our national heritage. Americans are very proud that our nation has prioritized conserving birds, fish, and other wildlife that make our country so special,” said Ramona McGee, leader of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Wildlife Program. “Here in the South, the stakes are much higher because of our world-renowned biodiversity, which is increasingly at risk from human-made factors like habitat destruction from unchecked, harmful development. It is unconscionable that our leaders are unnecessarily attempting to remove vital wildlife and habitat protections to placate extractive industries.”

“This nonstarter proposal ignores critical conservation provisions in a law that supports America’s most at-risk fish, wildlife, and plant populations, including over 600 species with habitat in our national parks,” said Christina Hazard, legislative director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “When food sources, nesting grounds or mating grounds are lost outside of national park boundaries, park wildlife will be lost as well.”

“Habitat integrity is among the most significant determinants of species’ survival; this rule change would jeopardize imperiled animals and entire ecosystems,” said Danielle Kessler, U.S. Country Director at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). “Effective, science-driven implementation of the Endangered Species Act — including habitat protection — benefits animals and people alike.”

“The Trump administration is attempting to dismantle and discredit one of America’s most popular and successful laws,” said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. “The current definition of ‘harm’ is a large part of what has made the ESA so effective at conserving imperiled species. This isn’t just redefining one word — it is gutting the heart of the Act. It will have cataclysmic consequences to the habitats, lands, and waters that America’s wildlife relies upon, and goes against Congress’ intent for the law.”

“Extinction is forever,” says Katherine Miller, Country Director for FOUR PAWS USA. “If we allow the ESA to be weakened and species’ habitats to be destroyed for profit, the consequences of these decisions will reverberate for generations. Science has shown that protecting a listed species’ habitat is vital to their survival and recovery. This is why we urge FWS and NMFS to withdraw their proposed rule and uphold America’s commitment to save endangered species, ensuring a livable planet for all of us.”

“Loss of habitat is the number one reason species become endangered,” said Susan Holmes, Executive Director of the Endangered Species Coalition. “Trump’s draconian proposal to end habitat protection for our most vulnerable wildlife rips out the heart of the Endangered Species Act and would put countless species on the path to extinction.”

“Every time the American people are asked to judge the Endangered Species Act, the results are the same — they’re overwhelmingly in favor of it.” said Ben Greuel, Sierra Club wildlife campaign manager. “In the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented attacks on this bedrock environmental law, more than 100,000 people have spoken clearly in opposition. Donald Trump will keep trying to sell out imperiled species to give corporate polluters free rein over our public lands, and we will be there every step of the way to defend the landscapes and wildlife that make this country great.”

“The Services’ proposal shows they are not serious about protecting imperiled species,” said Rebecca Riley, managing director for Food & Agriculture at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Habitat destruction is the number one threat to species’ survival, and yet they are coming up with weak excuses to claim Congress didn’t intend to address this existential threat.”

“Trump’s smash-and-grab habitat plan could welcome bulldozers and drilling rigs into the beautiful wild places that America’s most imperiled animals call home,” said Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The administration’s proposal seeks to rip a bloody hole in the Endangered Species Act, prioritizing industry profits over protecting habitat that’s crucial to preventing extinction. This is an illegal attempt to nullify a landmark wildlife law that’s supported by nearly every American who isn’t an oil executive, a timber baron, or a Trump appointee.”

“Piping Plovers were set on a path to extinction due to millinery and hunting at the turn of the 19th century,” said Chris Allieri, founder and executive director, NYC Plover Project. “These are not the challenges the species is currently facing. The number one threat today is habitat loss, wherever they are found, including their wintering and breeding ranges. Without habitat protection, this species, and countless more, will go extinct.”

###